Acura TSX vs Acura TL

Comments

It was interesting to read the thoughts from folks till now, specifically regarding Japanese built vs American built.

A few points:

a) Somebody mentioned about "unionized American workers". Honda workers are all non-union. They have been non-union all along, even though the UAW tried plenty of times to unionize the Japanese owned plants. The most recent attempt was to unionize the Smyrna, TN plant of Nissan but the unionizers were laughed off the grounds.

b) It is interesting to see that the 2004 Accords being sold in the US, have a variety of final assembly points. The V6 Accords (both Coupe and Sedan) are assembled in the Marysville, OH plant in the US. The 4-cylinder Coupe Accords are also built in the Ohio plant. The 4-cylinder Accord Sedans however are assembled in Sayama, Japan, like the TSX.

c) In all these years of the American built TLs, the only component that has failed in it is the transmission (around 1.6% of them). The transmission that failed, is built in Japan ! I sold my 2000 TL recently and it ran like a swiss watch till the day I sold it (~45,000 miles).

I agree with the above, the only way the TSX is going to be faster is just because they always do that sort of test in top gear, and they don't shift. Their is no way the TSX is faster than the IS300 is a flat out accleration contest.

Here is the problem with your arguement: If AUTOMOBILE did that test with both cars in top gear, the IS300 would have been a lot quicker than the TSX. The TSX's overdrive is less aggressive than the IS300, and the TSX has less HP at low RPM . If both cars were in overdrive, then there would be absolutely no reason for the TSX to be faster.

On the other hand, with a more typical shift pattern, it makes perfect sense that the TSX is faster than the IS300 in highway passing. The IS300 weights a good deal more, has a higher coefficient of drag, and has only 15 more HP. The higher torque in the IS300 is not going to help a whole lot at 50 MPH.

As I've said, you can believe what you want. The IS300 is certainly faster off the line, and faster in the 0-60 sprint, and faster in most driving situation. But, at highway passing speeds, the TSX is the faster vehicle.

TSX or IS300, which one is faster in rush hour traffic? Sounds like you boys have a speedway / test track right out your front door. How about it being all about what one likes......I love my TSX, and it usually will pass anything I want it to on the highway......Love you conversations.

I didn't say the TSX was the faster car. I agree with you that, in day to day driving, the TSX will be slower in most situations. I don't think anybody could dispute that. But, the TSX is faster at highway speeds, whether you not you choose to accept the Automobile's numbers.

The IS300's superior torque will move it off the line quicker, the TSX's slightly lower weight, better coefficient of drag, and similar HP will make it just as fast in the 30 to 70 MPH range.

THe weight difference varies depending on the source. I just checked ConsumerGuide and it had 3230 for the TSX, and 3255 for the IS300 as your report. AUTOMOBILE mag had a greater discrepency (about 200 pounds). Frankly, I trust ConsumerGuide more so I will yield on that point.

Incidently, the IS300 manual was also slower at passing speeds than the automatic BMW 325 in AUTOMOBILE's test. It isn't just a gearing issue, the IS300 has a soft spot in the midrange, and that is exactly where the TSX shines.

With 3000 miles on the clock, our auto TSX has averaged 26.2 mpg in mixed (75% city / 25% freeway) driving, this on 91 octane. We are looking forward to first real road trip soon, and expecting 32 - 35 mpg at steady state 70 - 75 mph. This would be consistent with our prior vehicle, a '95 4 cylinder Accord automatic, which averaged 25.5 mixed and 33 on extended trips, albeit on 87 octane.

Well I wouldn't trust Automobiles numbers on weight because they made the same type of weight errors on the E55,M5,S-Type R, RS6 comparo. I'd always go by the manufacturers numbers first, or at least Car and Driver, as they do actually weigh every car during it's time with them.

Automobile magazines test numbers are also suspect for one simple reason, they rarely actually "test" cars in the same manner as Road and Track and Car and Driver do. They clocked the E55 at 5.0 seconds from 0-60, at least a half second slower than everybody else. Automobile Mag is one those ride and drive type deals, they're not the most experienced testers. If (?) there are any other sources that say that TSX is faster than the IS300 in passing from 30-50 or 50-70 then I might believe it, but not from Automobile, they aren't seasoned "testers" when it comes to gettting the actual numbers.

AUTOMOBILE's 0-60 times and other stats agree pretty well with published stats for just about every car they tested. So, I see little reason not to trust their numbers (the conclusions they drew in that article are a whole different issue).

That simply isn't true for all of the cars they've reviewed. There are more than a few examples in which they don't get the same numbers as the other mags do. With the TSX they might have been correct. My point is that they more often than not simply publish manufacturers numbers and they rarely actually "test" anything. Look back through some of their issues prior to the last 8-10 months, they hardly ever tested anything themselves as far as the numbers go.

I'm curious, what does Car and Driver say about the TSX and the IS300 in passing? If they are say the same thing then I'd believe it.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but Car and Driver got the most optimistic numbers for the TSX of any major auto mag. If you want to trust C & D more than AUTOMOBILE, than you can't even argue that the IS300 is faster off the line.

C & D reported a 0 -60 of 7.2 seconds for the TSX, the exact same figure they got for the IS300. The TSX and IS300 were close to dead even in the quarter mile as well. The TSX did it in 15.6, the IS300 in 15.4. This is all in the July 2003 issue. They do report the 50 - 70 MPH times for the TSX, but not the IS300.

Do I believe those numbers? No. I think they seriously overestimate the TSX's performance. I think AUTOMOBILE's 8.1 seconds is more realistic. But, the point is, two of the three main auto mags concluded that the TSX offered performance that was competitive with the IS300.

I still think my original conclusion was accurate. The TSX is going to be quite a bit slower off the line, and slower overall, but as fast (and perhaps faster) at highway passing speeds.

Finally, whatever you think of AUTOMOBILE, the numbers they print in that particular issue are very consistent with EDMUNDS, Motor Trend, and other trustworthy sources.

Like I said earlier, Automobile is a crap shoot when it comes to actual testing. Yes I'd trust C&D more for consistancy. I didn't say they were perfect, but they are more consistant than Automobile, that was my original point.

Lastly, whats the point of saying the TSX is faster from 30-70 when it's the slower car overall, it pointless. Didn't say the TSX wasn't competitive, I said it wasn't faster you like you're claiming it is. Besides we're not talking about a gaping difference here in the first place. What you're comparing is like saying one car will do 150mph, when everything else is quicker to 100 mph, its matterless.

fdefulvio -The point here is the capabilities of the TSX. Many posters might want to opt for the TL, simply because of the assumption tha the TSX is underpowered.

Merc1 - In about 18 consecutive posts, I concluded that the TSX was not as fast as IS300 or most other cars in the class. Exactly where did I claim it was faster overall? What I did say was that once the cars get moving, the TSX was just as fast, and it is. Once the four gets moving, it is about as fast as many of the six-cyl in the class.

All this sprung from an earlier post by somebody who drove the TSX and TL, and concluded that the TSX lacked performance on the highway. That is simply not true. It is as fast as some of the other "fast" cars in this class (i.e., the IS300) once it gets on the highway.

And, btw, we're not talking about going to 150 mph or 100 mph, we're talking about speeds that everybody drives in a day-to-day basis. I'd wager that there more EDMUNDS posters every day who merge onto a highway or pass into the left lane than posters who need to go from a dead stop to sixty miles an hour.

The problem with the TSX, and something that might cause some to opt for the TL instead, is that it doens't move off the line quickly. However, at passing speeds, the TSX (like a lot of high reving 4-cyls cars) is competitive with vehicles that have far more torque.

"In about 18 consecutive posts, I concluded that the TSX was not as fast as IS300 or most other cars in the class."

Thats what I said from the beginning. I made the analogy about 150mph because imo it's about as irrelvant as claiming the TSX is faster than the IS300 from 30-70, when they're so close anyway, with the IS300 still being the overall faster car. Lets just agree to disagree ok?

You just concluded that the IS300 and TSX were reasonably close to each other at highway speeds, which is exactly what I've been arguing from the start. And, I don't think that is irrelevant at all. The main issue here is that the perceived lack of power in the TSX is not going to be felt at highway speeds, where it offers performance that rivals some six-cyl engines. Torque is going to have a bigger impact around town (C & D's results, which are really not believable, not withstanding).

So, a potential owner debating TSX vs. TL should realize that most signficant issue with the less expensive TSX will be at stop-and-go traffic around town. On the highway, the TSX is actually pretty quick.

i just got a 2003 TL base edition and my neighbor got a TSX. which one of these cars is faster? i know the TSX is pretty quick but the TL is a v6....does that make any difference? can you guys comment on the TSX against the 2003 TL and tell me what is better on the TL or what is better on the TSX. I like my 2003 TL but if the 4cylinder TSX is really that quick....maybe i should've gotten a TSX. please comment on the 2003 TL versus the TSX. thanks

The TSX is at the bottom of the class in torque and sheer acceleration and the TL is somewhere in the middle. So, I'd say a 2003 TL will be quite a bit faster than the 2004 TSX. It won't handle as well, and it is missing some features that are on the TSX (side airbags, voice activated nav, etc). But, the TL will definitely be a good deal faster.

Guys. I have a question. How could a 4 banger be stronger/faster at highway speeds than a 6 cylinder whether it's an I6 or a V6 ? I thought that it's the opposite where a 4 banger like a TSX for example would beat a similar HP I6 or V6 on a 0-60, but when it comes to passing speeds or downshifting at 50-60 mph from 4th to 3rd gear is where a 6 would be more powerful. I thought that downhsifting from 4th to 3rd on a 4 banger at 50-60 mph would cause the owner of that 4 banger to be picking up it's engine parts on the road.

It's all in all how you like your power, I wouldn't want to have rev the TSX or any other entry-lux/sport sedan that hard to get a few tenths a second difference in passing times. I'd prefer the smoother operation of a I6.

I'm being picky with this, but air induction and bore/stroke ratios also have significant roles in torque production.

Oniac - Gearing, weight, and a host of other things will determine how fast a car will accelerate. The "power" generated by the engine is only half the battle. Explaining it in more detail would take a few pages.

"I thought that downhsifting from 4th to 3rd on a 4 banger at 50-60 mph would cause the owner of that 4 banger to be picking up it's engine parts on the road."

Well... that depends on the engine and gearing. Sound familiar? A downshift to 3rd from 50-60 mph isn't a big deal. Even a downshift from 50-60 to 2nd may be possible a few select cars. Any shift that results in the next gear revving the engine higher than redline would cause a problem.